Yeah, that's the kind of insanity I'm talking about. You can't let a delusional doomer cult run the country, that would be really bad for everyone. And the doomer shit is bad enough but on top of that you got the woketard fanaticism and the scientistic authoritarianism. The Republicans just wanna fuck you over and bomb brown people, the dems are psychotic nihilistic control freaks that want total domination over their human cattle. The Republicans are just scumbags, the dems are hardcore maniacal evil on the same level as the Chicom gulagists.
OK, so you think that ACC aka AGW is a hoax or a dooms day cult.
I wonder where the chain of reasoning or proof fails to convince you?
I don't think it is these points.
1] CO2 absorbs infrared light and so acts like a blanket to hold heat in the air.
2] Air bubbles in ice cores in Greenland and Antarctica can be used to tell us how much CO2 was in the air over the last 40,000 years. So, we know for certain how much CO2 was in the air in 1800 at the start of massive coal burning.
3] There are sufficient records for scientists to calculate how much coal has been burned since 1800, and also oil since 1850 and natural gas since 1900. These amounts can then be used to calculate how much CO2 (millions of tons or millions of cubic feet) have been added to the air. This can then tell use how many ppb of CO2 has been added to the air.
4] We can measure the ppb of CO2 in the air and it is less than the above number, but we know some CO2 has been added to the oceans as well as the air.
5] Scientists have estimated the CO2 added to the air by volcanoes since 1800 and it is small compared to the calculated coal, oil, & gas we have burned. Besides which volcanoes have been erupting for many thousands of years and not had much impact on the ppb of CO2 in the ice core air bubbles.
I think you stop believing at this point, tell me if I'm wrong.
6] Since 1987 about 2 dozen models have been created to predict how much more heat from sun light will be trapped in the air by the increase in ppb of CO2 in the air. These about 24 models were recently rerun using actual data since they were 1st used and not the estimated increase in ppb. Of these about 24 models 14 matched the actual heating we have measured pretty well. Some of these match the measurements for 30 years, some for 20 years, and some for 10 years (since they were 1st created).
. . . I see this as confirmation that these 14 models will be pretty accurate in (for example) 30 years in their predictions of measured heating over those 30 years if the correct actual measured data of CO2 added is input over those 30 years.
. . . If this is so then the *only* real problem with the climate models is the inaccurate estimates of how much CO2 will be added to the air. However, it takes time for a heavy blanket put over a sleeping person (with just a sheet) to warm them up to the new point at which the heat getting past the blanket equals the heat being liberated by the sleeping person. At this point a thermometer under the blanket will stop increasing. Or for a pot of water on low heat that is losing heat as fast as it is added by the fire, so it never boils, it takes time to heat the water to boiling if the fire is turned up a lot.
. . . So, there is a time delay. This delay was built into all those 14 pretty good models. This delay predicts that the CO2 already in the air will heat the world's air by 1.5 deg. C over the next 10 or so years IIRC.
. . . We have already heated up the air by about 2 deg. C since 1800. If we stop adding CO2 now, the best case** is the air will be 3.5 deg. C hotter than it was in 1800 by 2030.
. . . Scientists tell us that this will melt all the mountain ice, which means that many of the worlds rivers will stop flowing in the summer every year. So, there will be no water for irrigation when it is needed most.
. . . Scientists tell us that grain crops will not grow in many places were they do now if it gets this hot on average. Places like Iowa, Kansas, central China, and central India. If NO GRAIN is grown in these big regions (and less grain is harvested in many other even bigger regions) then there will be mass starvation in many areas of the world within 10 years.
You are worried about your freedom. OK.
. . . However, it is a well understood principal of American political philosophy, that your freedom to wave your arms around ENDS when they start hitting other people in the face.
. . . So, why should you be free to burn gas to add CO2 to the air if that CO2 will make people starve to death in 10 years or so? [Used as an example only, anything that adds CO2 to the air is bad.]
. . . I don't think a case can be made for that. Therefore, you must *not* accept the conclusion that there will be mass starvation in 10 years or so, and there will be no food anywhere on earth with which to feed them.
As I see it, you have 2 ways too not care.
1] You totally reject the above point #6.
2] You think it is too late now so we might as well live as best we can for a shorter time than live just a few years longer (and it would be just a few year, IMHO) but suffer a reduced living standard.
. . . That is why not spend your last 2 hours of life as the Titanic sinks getting stinking drunk drinking all the booze it is carrying, if you are going to die when it sinks in any case? Compared to working using a bucket brigade to try to bail the water out, knowing it will just take 1 hour longer for the ship to sink.
. ** . This assumes that no huge breakthru will be made to find a way to remove CO2 from the air on an industrial scale. There is no known way now.